Talk:Louis XVI
For what it's worth, I would not have gone out of my way to restore these various redirects to the French kings, but as there were few monarchs outside of France who used the name "Louis", I'm "ok" with leaving things be. Same with the Napoleon redirects. TR (talk) 04:06, April 25, 2016 (UTC) :I went out of my way recently to get rid of them. I resent Jonathan restoring them without first discussing it and am inclined to reverse his changes and set the protection on the articles to "Administrator" only until he smartens up. ML4E (talk) 16:27, April 25, 2016 (UTC) ::I certainly don't object to their removal, either. Whichever way the majority goes on this one. TR (talk) 18:01, April 25, 2016 (UTC) ::Though I'm not all that invested in this particular case, I can relate to ML4E's frustration and support his proposal. I would even be open to temp-banning Jonathan; bad behavior of one sort or another has persisted with very few interruptions for almost a year now, maybe being made to sit in the corner and think about what he's done will finally have some effect. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:32, April 25, 2016 (UTC) :::I think banning of any duration is a drastic step for well-intentioned if dubious edits. TR (talk) 04:45, April 26, 2016 (UTC) ::::I've been holding off on suggesting it for months, because I agree, but--it just never ends with him! The speculative lit comms, the misplaced categories (he wanted to call God an astronomer), the inappropriate illustrations, now these unnecessary redirects, all of them carried on in blissful ignorance of our efforts to bring him to heel. And when Blaise MacDuff threw his little hissy-fit here, Jonathan came out of nowhere to take a few potshots at us, complaining about how "strict and intolerant" we are and saying he's found "ways to game the system." (Which, if I had to guess, mainly consists of shitting up the Recent Changes page with so many minor edits that he overwhelms our efforts to keep track of everything he's done.) I'm just so sick of it all! Turtle Fan (talk) 05:07, April 26, 2016 (UTC) :::Ah yes, this. I had toyed with the idea of a short time-out as well but haven't taken the step to propose it. Certainly something to keep in mind but I am unsure of my own temper and judgement to necessarily follow through. ML4E (talk) 18:28, April 29, 2016 (UTC) ::::It would get his attention, which is very hard to do, apparently. Deleting his asinine Vilcabamba redirects on gold and silver haven't made a dent in his pointless redirects. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:22, April 29, 2016 (UTC) ::::I see no harm in that aside from cluttering up the "Recent Changes" listing. It does strike me as busy work rather than anything overly useful though. Maybe you get a prize when you hit zillionty-seven changes. ML4E (talk) 17:37, April 30, 2016 (UTC) :::::There is that. He seems to have the most time to spend here of any of us, imagine what an asset he'd be if he used it productively. And if memory serves, there are a couple of stories he's read that none of us have. I wish he'd write those up instead of dicking around for no reason. Turtle Fan (talk) 18:41, April 30, 2016 (UTC) On the substantive issue, I just cleaned out a bunch of redirects for Japanese Naval Vessels created when they were renamed to include the "IJN" prefix. I saw what I think were several constructs of coding where the redirect name was used rather than the full name. I know I did that today, at least once, when creating the "(Days of Infamy)" redirects. In either case, they redirected to the article and not to the specific sub-section and I can see the same thing occurring with "Louis XVI". In future, someone could well try to code "Louis XVI#Louis XVI in XXXX" and it not working but the failure not being obvious. :A valid concern. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:19, April 26, 2016 (UTC) This is apart from Jonathan changing this back without discussing the issue first. I did make comments in the "Summary" section explaining that those redirects were the result of article renames and should be removed. Did he respond to that and try to justify their continued existence? Nope. ML4E (talk) 23:50, April 25, 2016 (UTC) :Of course not. Turtle Fan (talk) 00:19, April 26, 2016 (UTC)